[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Buddhist Sanskrit literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit) › [Mahāyāna sūtras](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra) › [Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana) › [འཕགས་པ་དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲེལ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo) › English (machine translation) # English (machine translation) Translation of [འཕགས་པ་དགངས་པ་ངས་པར་འགྲལ་པ་ཞས་བྱ་བ་ཐག་པ་ཆན་པའ་མད (འཕགས་པ་དགོངས་པ་ངེས་པར་འགྲེལ་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo) - **Language:** English - **Extent:** 107 passages, 28,932 words - **Text:** partly digitised - **Source:** pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana\*bo · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own… ## Contents - [1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.1) - [2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.2) - [3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.3) - [4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.4) - [5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.5) - [6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.6) - [7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.7) - [8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.8) - [9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.9) - [10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.10) - [11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.11) - [12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.12) - [13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.13) - [14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.14) - [15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.15) - [16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.16) - [17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.17) - [18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.18) - [19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.19) - [22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.22) - [23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.23) - [24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.24) - [25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.25) - [26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.26) - [27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.27) - [28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.28) - [29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.29) - [30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.30) - [31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.31) - [32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.32) - [33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.33) - [34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.34) - [35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.35) - [36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.36) - [37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.37) - [38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.38) - [39](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.39) - [40](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.40) - [41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.41) - [42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.42) - [43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.43) - [44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.44) - [45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.45) - [46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.46) - [47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.47) - [48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.48) - [49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.49) - [50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.50) - [51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.51) - [52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.52) - [53](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.53) - [54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.54) - [55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.55) - [56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.56) - [57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.57) - [58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.58) - [59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.59) - [60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.60) - [61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.61) - [62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.62) - [63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.63) - [64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.64) - [65](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.65) - [66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.66) - [67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.67) - [68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.68) - [69](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.69) - [70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.70) - [71](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.71) - [72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.72) - [73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.73) - [74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.74) - [75](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.75) - [76](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.76) - [77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.77) - [78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.78) - [79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.79) - [80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.80) - [81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.81) - [82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.82) - [83](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.83) - [84](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.84) - [85](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.85) - [86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.86) - [87](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.87) - [88](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.88) - [89](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.89) - [90](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.90) - [91](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.91) - [92](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.92) - [93](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.93) - [94](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.94) - [95](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.95) - [96](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.96) - [97](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.97) - [98](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.98) - [99](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.99) - [100](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.100) - [101](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.101) - [102](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.102) - [103](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.103) - [104](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.104) - [105](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.105) - [106](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.106) - [107](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.107) - [108](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.108) - [109](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.109) ## Text ### [1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.1) In the language of India: Āryasaṃdhinirmocananāmamahāyānasūtra. In the language of Tibet: The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra Entitled “Saṃdhinirmocana”. Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas! Thus have I heard at one time: The Bhagavān was residing in a palace arranged of the seven precious substances shining supremely ablaze, endowed with an immense radiance that fully suffused boundless world-systems, its distinctive locations extensively partitioned, arranged without end, its perimeter unbroken, a domain wholly transcending the three realms, arisen from transcendental roots of virtue of that highest nature, characterised by thoroughly perfected consciousness that exercises mastery, the abode of the Tathāgata, accompanied by an immeasurable saṅgha of bodhisattvas, and frequented by boundless gods, nāgas, ### [2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.2) yakṣas, gandharvas, asuras, garuḍas, kiṃnaras, mahoragas, humans, and non-humans; sustained by the great joy and bliss of the taste of the Dharma; continually engaged in bringing about the complete achievement of all goals for all sentient beings; free from all afflictions of defilement; having utterly abandoned all māras; excelling all decorative displays; manifested through the blessings of the Tathāgata; emerging through mindfulness, intelligence, and great realization; mounted upon great śamatha and vipaśyanā; entering through the great vimokṣamukhas of śūnyatā, animitta, and apraṇihita; based upon the arrangement adorned with the boundless collection of qualities of the great jewel lotus king. The Bhagavān possessed an intellect that had fully comprehended \[the real\], acted universally, had no duality, was devoted supremely to things devoid of marks, abided in the state of a buddha, had attained equality with all buddhas, had fully comprehended unobstructed realization, was endowed with non-retrogressing qualities, was unassailable in his sphere of activity, established what is inconceivable, had arrived at the completion of equality regarding the three times, was endowed with the five bodies pervading all world-systems, possessed unobstructed knowledge regarding all phenomena, possessed an intellect endowed with all conduct, was devoid of hesitation regarding the knowledge of phenomena, possessed a body free from vikalpa, ### [3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.3) from whom all bodhisattvas correctly received wisdom, non-dual in the abiding of a buddha, having reached the supreme beyond, having attained the culmination of the Tathāgata's knowledge of unmixed liberation, having fully comprehended the equality of the limitless and boundaryless buddhabhūmi, coextensive with the dharmadhātu, reaching to the bounds of the realm of space. The boundless saṅgha of śrāvakas as well were all completely knowledgeable, children of the Buddha, their minds thoroughly liberated, their prajñā thoroughly liberated, their moral discipline thoroughly purified, easily meeting with those who seek the Dharma, of great learning, retaining what they heard, accumulating learning, thinking good thoughts, speaking good words, performing actions well to be done, possessing quick prajñā, swift prajñā, sharp prajñā, possessing prajñā that leads to emergence, possessing prajñā of decisive understanding, possessing great prajñā, vast prajñā, deep prajñā, matchless prajñā, endowed with precious prajñā, endowed with the three knowledges, having attained the supreme state of abiding in bliss in this life, undergoing great purification, consummate in supremely calmed deportment, endowed with patience and great certitude, entirely established in the word of the Tathāgata. And all the immeasurable bodhisattvas assembled from diverse buddha fields as well abided and correctly engaged in the great abode, had emerged through the teachings of the Mahāyāna, had an equal attitude toward all sentient beings, were free from all vitarka, vikalpa, and parikalpa, had defeated all māras and adversaries, were far removed from all manaskāra of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, were sustained by the great joy ### [4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.4) and bliss of the taste of the Dharma, had wholly transcended the five great fears, were solely progressing on the avaivartika stage, and had directly realized the stage that pacifies all harms for all sentient beings, namely: the bodhisattva mahāsattva Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana, Vidhivatparipṛcchaka, Dharmodgata, Suviśuddhaprabha, Vipulamati, Guṇākara, Paramārthasamudgata, the noble Avalokiteśvara, Maitreya, and the bodhisattva mahāsattva Mañjuśrī, and so forth. Then the bodhisattva Vidhivatparipṛcchaka, in reference to the ultimate truth characterized by the inexpressible and non-dual, questioned the bodhisattva Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana: “Son of the Conqueror, when it is said, ‘all phenomena are non-dual, all phenomena are non-dual,’ what are all phenomena, and how are they non-dual?” \[Gambhīrārthasaṃdhinirmocana replied:\] “Noble son, ‘all phenomena, all phenomena’ are merely twofold: the conditioned and the unconditioned. In that regard, the conditioned is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. The unconditioned is also neither unconditioned nor conditioned.” He asked: “Son of the Conqueror, how is the conditioned neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and the unconditioned also neither unconditioned nor conditioned?” “Noble son, ‘conditioned’ is a term designated by the Teacher. Whatever is a term designated by the Teacher is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction. Whatever is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction is not conditioned, because conventional expressions of diverse mental construction are entirely unestablished. ### [5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.5) “Noble son, ‘unconditioned’ is also subsumed under conventional expression; and whatever is expressed apart from the conditioned and the unconditioned likewise becomes identical to that, and it will be identical to that as well. Yet expression is not without a real entity. And what is that entity? It is that which has been completely and perfectly awakened to as inexpressible by the noble knowledge and noble vision of the noble ones; for the sake of bringing about complete and perfect realization of that very inexpressible dharmatā, the name ‘conditioned’ was designated. Noble son, ‘unconditioned’ is also a term designated by the Teacher. Whatever is a term designated by the Teacher is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction. Whatever is a conventional expression arisen from mental construction is not unconditioned, because conventional expressions of diverse mental construction are entirely unestablished. Noble son, ‘conditioned’ is also subsumed under conventional expression; and whatever is expressed apart from the conditioned and the unconditioned likewise becomes identical to that, and it will be identical to that as well. Yet expression is not without a real entity. And what is that entity? It is that which has been completely and perfectly awakened to as inexpressible by the noble knowledge and noble vision of the noble ones; for the sake of bringing about complete and perfect realization of that very inexpressible dharmatā, the name ‘unconditioned’ was designated.” “Son of the Conqueror, how has that entity been completely and perfectly awakened to as inexpressible by the noble knowledge and noble vision of the noble ones, so that for the sake of bringing about complete and perfect realization of that very inexpressible dharmatā, the names ‘conditioned’ and ‘unconditioned’ \[were designated\]?” ### [6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.6) \[such designations are merely\] designated. Son of good family, it is just like this: for example, suppose an illusionist or a clever apprentice of an illusionist sat at a great crossroads, gathered grass, leaves, wood, pebbles, and pot-shards together, and displayed various illusionary workings such as a troop of elephants, a troop of cavalry, a troop of chariots, and a troop of infantry, as well as an accumulation of jewels, pearls, lapis lazuli, conches, crystal, and coral, along with wealth, grain, storehouses, and granaries. Thereupon, those sentient beings who have an immature nature, a bewildered nature, an aberrant prajñā nature, and do not understand those \[gatherings of\] grass, leaves, wood, pebbles, and pot-shards—whenever they see or hear that, they think: 'That which appears as a troop of elephants exists. That which appears as a troop of horses, a troop of chariots, a troop of infantry, jewels, pearls, lapis lazuli, conches, crystal, coral, wealth, grain, storehouses, and granaries exists.' Thinking thus, exactly as they have seen and heard, they obstinately cling to it as supreme, grasp onto it, and subsequently apply conventional designations, declaring: 'Only this is true; anything else is false!' Later, they will need to examine this closely. However, those sentient beings who do not have an immature nature, do not have a bewildered nature, have an endowed prajñā nature, and understand those \[gatherings of\] grass, leaves, wood, pebbles, and pot-shards—whenever they see or hear that, they think: 'That which appears as a troop of elephants does not exist. That which appears as a troop of cavalry, a troop of chariots, a troop of infantry, jewels, pearls, lapis lazuli, conches, crystal, coral, wealth, grain, storehouses, ### [7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.7) and granaries does not exist! Rather, that which gives rise to the perception of a troop of elephants, the perception of designations for a troop of elephants, and the perception of everything up to wealth, grain, storehouses, and granaries, and the perception of designations for them—that illusionary creation exists; this which deceives the eyes exists!' Thinking thus, they do not, exactly as they have seen and heard, obstinately cling to it as supreme, grasp onto it, and subsequently apply conventional designations declaring: 'Only this is true; anything else is false!' Instead, they apply conventional designations solely in order to communicate the meaning. Later, they will not need to examine this closely. In the same way, those sentient beings who have an immature nature, who are ordinary persons, who have not attained noble, supramundane prajñā, and who do not directly know the ineffable dharmatā of all dharmas—when they see or hear of the conditioned and the unconditioned, they think: 'That which appears as the conditioned and the unconditioned exists.' Thinking thus, exactly as they have seen and heard, they obstinately cling to it as supreme, grasp onto it, and subsequently apply conventional designations declaring: 'Only this is true; anything else is false!' Later, they will need to examine this closely. However, those sentient beings who do not have an immature nature, who have seen the truth, who have attained noble, supramundane prajñā, and who directly know the ineffable dharmatā of all dharmas—when they see or hear of the conditioned and the unconditioned, they think: 'That which appears as the conditioned and the unconditioned does not exist. Rather, that in relation to which the perception of the conditioned and the unconditioned arises, and in relation to which the perception of designations for the conditioned and the unconditioned arises— ### [8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.8) arisen from vikalpa, this illusion-like nimitta of saṃskāra exists; this which bewilders the mind exists!' Thinking thus, they do not, exactly as they have seen and heard, obstinately cling to it as supreme, grasp onto it, and subsequently apply conventional designations declaring: 'Only this is true; anything else is false!' Instead, they apply conventional designations solely in order to communicate the meaning. Later, they will not need to examine this closely. Son of good family, in this way, the noble ones awaken to that entity in an ineffable manner through noble jñāna and noble vision; and in order to cause that very ineffable dharmatā to be fully realized, it is given the names 'conditioned' and 'unconditioned.' Then, on that occasion, the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata spoke these verses: / Although the Victorious One taught that the profound, which is beyond the reach of the immature, / Is ineffable and non-dual, / These immature, bewildered, and ignorant ones / Delight in the proliferation of speech and dwell in duality. / Those who fail to realize it or conceptualize it wrongly / Are reborn even as sheep and cattle; / Having abandoned that speech of knowledge, / They will wander in this saṃsāra for an exceedingly long time. / This is the first chapter, on the Bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata. Then the bodhisattva Dharmodgata addressed the Bhagavān: 'Bhagavān, in a time long past, beyond as many lokadhātus from here as there are grains of sand in seventy-seven Gaṅgā rivers, in the buddhakṣetra called Prasiddhā belonging to the Tathāgata Prasiddhakīrti, when I was residing there, I saw seventy-seven hundred thousand tīrthikas, along with their respective teachers, assembled and gathered together in one place, starting out to deliberate on the ultimate lakṣaṇa of dharmas. ### [9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.9) They deliberated, weighed, investigated, and thoroughly sought the ultimate lakṣaṇa of dharmas, but failing to realize it, with discordant intellects, doubtful minds, and corrupted intellects, they engaged in quarreling and dispute. They overwhelmed one another with forceful speech, hurled abuse, spoke evasively, suppressed each other, and refuted each other, and then parted ways. Having seen this, Bhagavān, I thought: 'Alas! That Tathāgatas arise in the world, and that by their appearance such a lakṣaṇa of the ultimate truth, completely transcending all dialectical reasoning, is realized and directly manifested, is marvelous and astonishing!' When he had spoken thus, the Bhagavān said to the bodhisattva Dharmodgata: 'Dharmodgata, it is so! It is just so! I have fully awakened to the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate truth that completely transcends all dialectical reasoning; and having fully awakened to it, I have declared it, clarified it, analyzed it, established it, and taught it. Why is that? Because I have explained that the ultimate truth is the personal realization of the noble ones, whereas mutual communication among ordinary beings belongs to the domain of dialectical reasoning. Therefore, Dharmodgata, by this line of reasoning you should understand that whatever lakṣaṇa completely transcends all dialectical reasoning is the ultimate truth. Furthermore, Dharmodgata, I have explained that the ultimate truth belongs to the domain of the animitta, whereas dialectical reasoning belongs to the domain of nimitta. Therefore, Dharmodgata, by this line of reasoning as well, you should know that the lakṣaṇa which completely transcends all dialectical reasoning... ### [10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.10) reality is what should be known as the ultimate. Dharmodgata, furthermore, I have taught that the ultimate is inexpressible, whereas dialectical thought has expression as its domain. Therefore, Dharmodgata, by this explanation too you should know that whatever has a character that completely transcends all dialectical thought is the ultimate. Dharmodgata, furthermore, I have taught that the ultimate completely cuts off all conventional designations, whereas dialectical thought has conventional designations as its domain. Therefore, Dharmodgata, by this explanation too you should know that whatever has a character that completely transcends all dialectical thought is the ultimate. Dharmodgata, furthermore, I have taught that the ultimate completely cuts off all disputes, whereas dialectical thought has dispute as its domain. Therefore, Dharmodgata, by this explanation too you should know that whatever has a character that completely transcends all dialectical thought is the ultimate. Dharmodgata, it is just like, for example, a person who, having relied upon hot and bitter flavors throughout their whole life, cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the taste of honey or sugar. Someone who has long taken pleasure in sensual desire and has been consumed by the torments of desire cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the inner, completely secluded bliss that is devoid of all signs of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch. Someone who has long taken pleasure in talk and delights in talk cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the inner, noble bliss of silence. Someone who has long taken pleasure in the conventional designations of what is seen, heard, distinguished, and cognized, and delights in conventional designations, cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the nirvāṇa that completely cuts off all conventional designations and ceases the transitory collection ### [11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.11) of aggregates. Dharmodgata, it is just like, for example, someone who has long striven in dispute out of grasping onto 'mine' and who delights in dispute, cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the lack of grasping onto 'mine' and the lack of dispute among the people of Uttarakuru. In the same way, Dharmodgata, all dialecticians cannot imagine, infer, or believe in the character of the ultimate that completely transcends all dialectical thought." Then the Bhagavān spoke these verses at that time: "Its domain is the character of one's own personal realization; / Inexpressible and completely cutting off conventional designations, / Free from dispute is the ultimate dharma; / Its character transcends all dialectical thought." This is the second chapter, on Dharmodgata. Then the bodhisattva Viśuddhamati addressed the Bhagavān: "Bhagavān, that the Bhagavān has stated, 'The ultimate is subtle, profound, with a character that completely transcends sameness and difference, and difficult to comprehend,'—just as the Bhagavān has so well spoken it, so is it wondrous! Bhagavān, here in a certain place, I saw a great many bodhisattvas who had entered the stage of engagement through faith. Taking as their topic the sameness and difference between saṃskāras and the ultimate, they gathered together and assembled. There, some bodhisattvas said: 'The character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are not different.' Others said: 'It is not that the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are not different; rather, the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are different.' ### [12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.12) Still others, with doubting minds and indecisive thoughts, asked: 'Among those bodhisattvas who say that the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are different, and those who say that the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are not different, which of them speak non-existent things? Which speak falsehoods? Which have entered properly? Which have entered improperly?' Seeing this, Bhagavān, I thought: 'All these noble sons do not know the subtle character of the ultimate, which completely transcends being different or not different from saṃskāras; they are foolish, confused, unclear, inexpert, and exclusively entered improperly.'" When this had been said, the Bhagavān spoke to the bodhisattva Viśuddhamati: "Viśuddhamati, it is so. It is just so. All those noble sons do not know the subtle character of the ultimate, which completely transcends being different or not different from saṃskāras; they are foolish, confused, unclear, inexpert, and exclusively entered improperly. Why is that? Viśuddhamati, it is because those who examine saṃskāras in that manner do not realize the ultimate nor do they directly perceive the ultimate. Why is that? Viśuddhamati, if the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate were not different, then all foolish ordinary beings would see the truth. While remaining ordinary beings, they would attain perfection and ### [13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.13) the bliss of unsurpassed nirvāṇa, and they would directly and fully awaken to unsurpassed, complete enlightenment. If the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate were different, then even those who see the truth would not be free from the signs of saṃskāras. Because they would not be free from the signs of saṃskāras, those who see the truth would not be liberated from the bondage of signs. If they were not liberated from the bondage of signs, they would also not be liberated from the bondage of dauṣṭhulya. If they were not liberated from both bondages, those who see the truth would not attain perfection and the bliss of unsurpassed nirvāṇa, nor would they directly and fully awaken to unsurpassed, complete enlightenment. Viśuddhamati, because ordinary beings do not see the truth, and while remaining ordinary beings do not attain perfection and the bliss of unsurpassed nirvāṇa, nor directly and fully awaken to unsurpassed, complete enlightenment, it is therefore inadmissible to say that the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are not different. In that regard, you should know by this explanation that those who claim that the character of saṃskāras and the character of the ultimate are not different have entered improperly, not properly. Viśuddhamati, because those who see the truth are not unfree from the signs of saṃskāras, but rather are completely free from them; and those who see the truth are not unliberated from the bondage of signs, but rather are completely liberated; and those who see the truth are not unliberated from the bondage of dauṣṭhulya, but rather are completely liberated; and when completely liberated from both of those bondages, perfection and unsurpassed bliss ### [14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.14) Because of not having \[these two bonds\], one attains nirvāṇa and fully awakens to unexcelled, perfect bodhi. Therefore, one cannot say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are different. In that regard, those who say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are different should be known by you, through this reasoning, to have proceeded improperly and not to have proceeded properly. Furthermore, Viśuddhamati, if the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate were not different, then just as the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras is included in the lakṣaṇa of affliction, so too the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate would be included in the lakṣaṇa of affliction. Viśuddhamati, if the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate were also different, then the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate would not be the universal lakṣaṇa of all lakṣaṇas of saṃskāras. Viśuddhamati, because the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate is not included in the lakṣaṇa of affliction, and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate is the universal lakṣaṇa of all lakṣaṇas of saṃskāras, therefore it is neither proper to say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are not different, nor is it proper to say that the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate is different. In that regard, those who say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are not different, or who say that the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate is different, should be known by you, through this reasoning, to have proceeded improperly and not to have proceeded properly. Furthermore, Viśuddhamati, if the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate were not ### [15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.15) different, then just as the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate is without distinction across all lakṣaṇas of saṃskāras, so too all lakṣaṇas of saṃskāras would be without distinction, and yogins would not search for the ultimate beyond how saṃskāras are seen, heard, distinguished, and cognized. If the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate were different, then the mere selflessness and mere lack of intrinsic nature of saṃskāras would not be the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate, and the lakṣaṇa of affliction and the lakṣaṇa of purification would be established as different lakṣaṇas at the same time. Viśuddhamati, because the lakṣaṇas of saṃskāras have distinctions and are not without distinction; and yogins search for the ultimate beyond how saṃskāras are seen, heard, distinguished, and cognized; and the ultimate is characterized by the selflessness of saṃskāras; and the lakṣaṇa of affliction and \[the lakṣaṇa of\] purification are not established as different lakṣaṇas at the same time; therefore it is neither proper to say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are not different, nor that they are different. In that regard, those who say that the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are not different, or that they are different, should be known by you, through this reasoning, to have proceeded improperly and not to have proceeded properly. Viśuddhamati, it is like this, for example: the whiteness of a conch shell is not a different lakṣaṇa from the conch shell, nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. Just as it is with the whiteness of a conch shell, so it is with the yellowness of gold. The melodiousness of the sound of a vīṇā is also not a different lakṣaṇa from the sound of the vīṇā, ### [16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.16) nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. The fragrance of black agaru is also not a different lakṣaṇa from the black agaru, nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. The spiciness of black pepper is also not a different lakṣaṇa from the black pepper, nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. Just as it is with the spiciness of black pepper, so it is with the astringency of myrobalan. It is like this, for example: the softness of cotton cloth is also not a different lakṣaṇa from the cotton cloth, nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. It is like this, for example: the clarified butter in butter is also not a different lakṣaṇa from the butter, nor is it easy to designate it as a different lakṣaṇa. It is like this, for example: the impermanence in all saṃskāras, the suffering in all that is accompanied by contamination, and the selflessness in all dharmas are also not different lakṣaṇas from them, nor are they easy to designate as different lakṣaṇas. Viśuddhamati, it is like this, for example: the unpeaceful lakṣaṇa and the afflicted lakṣaṇa of desire are also not different lakṣaṇas from desire, nor are they easy to designate as different lakṣaṇas; and just as it is with desire, so it should be known with hatred and delusion. Viśuddhamati, in the same way, the lakṣaṇa of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate are not different lakṣaṇas, nor do they admit of being designated as different lakṣaṇas. Viśuddhamati, in this way I have fully awakened to the ultimate lakṣaṇa that is subtle, exceedingly subtle, supremely deep, difficult to realize, exceedingly difficult \[to realize\], and completely transcends being different or not different; and having fully awakened, I have explained, clarified, distinguished, designated, and ### [17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.17) fully taught it." Then, at that time, the Bhagavān spoke these verses: / "The realm of saṃskāras and the lakṣaṇa of the ultimate / Are a lakṣaṇa free from being one or different. / Those who conceptualize them as one or different / Have proceeded improperly. / / When beings have cultivated / Vipaśyanā and śamatha, / They will be liberated from the bond of dauṣṭhulya / And from the bond of nimittas." / The third chapter, on Viśuddhamati. / Then the Bhagavān said to the venerable Subhūti: "Subhūti, in the realm of sentient beings, how many sentient beings do you know who express understanding while being possessed by presumption? In the realm of sentient beings, how many sentient beings do you know who express understanding without presumption?" Subhūti replied: "Bhagavān, I know that in the realm of sentient beings, sentient beings who express understanding without presumption are few. But Bhagavān, I know that in the realm of sentient beings, those who express understanding while being possessed by presumption are immeasurable, countless, and ineffable. Bhagavān, once when I was dwelling in a great wilderness forest, very many monks in my vicinity also stayed relying upon that great wilderness forest. In the morning, when the monks gathered together from here and there, they expressed understanding by teaching the realization focusing on various dharmas. There, some focused on the aggregates, focused on the nimitta of the aggregates, focused on the arising of the aggregates, focused on the disintegration of the aggregates, and focused on the \[cessation of\] the ### [18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.18) \[…\] the cessation of the aggregates as an ālambana, and the actualisation of the cessation of the aggregates as an ālambana, and declare their knowledge. Just as some \[do so\] by taking the aggregates as an ālambana, so others take the āyatanas as an ālambana, while some declare their knowledge by taking dependent origination as an ālambana. Some declare their knowledge by taking sustenance as an ālambana, the nimitta of sustenance as an ālambana, the arising of sustenance as an ālambana, the disintegration of sustenance as an ālambana, the cessation of sustenance as an ālambana, and the actualisation of the cessation of sustenance as an ālambana. Some declare their knowledge by taking the truths as an ālambana, the lakṣaṇa of the truths as an ālambana, the thorough knowledge of the truths as an ālambana, the abandonment of the truths as an ālambana, the actualisation of the truths as an ālambana, and the cultivation of the truths as an ālambana. Some declare their knowledge by taking the dhātus as an ālambana, the nimitta of the dhātus as an ālambana, the manifoldness of the dhātus as an ālambana, the multiplicity of the dhātus as an ālambana, the cessation of the dhātus as an ālambana, and the actualisation of the cessation of the dhātus as an ālambana. Some declare their knowledge by taking the foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana, the nimitta of the foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana, the discordant factors and antidotes of the foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana, the cultivation of the foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana, the arising of unarisen foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana, and the abiding, non-forgetting, recurrence, increase, and expansion of arisen foundations of mindfulness as an ālambana. Just as some \[do so\] regarding the foundations of mindfulness, so others declare their knowledge by taking the correct abandonments, the bases of miraculous power, the faculties, the powers, the limbs of bodhi, and some the noble eightfold path ### [19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.19) as an ālambana, the nimitta of the noble eightfold path as an ālambana, the antidote to the discordant factors of the noble eightfold path as an ālambana, the cultivation of the noble eightfold path as an ālambana, the arising of the unarisen noble eightfold path as an ālambana, and the abiding, non-forgetting, recurrence, increase, and expansion of the arisen noble eightfold path as an ālambana — such I have seen. Having seen them, this thought occurred to me: 'These venerable ones declare their knowledge by displaying an understanding of diverse dharmas, and because they do not understand the ultimate truth that is everywhere of one taste in lakṣaṇa, these venerable ones are entirely persons of haughty pride, seized by haughty pride, who declare their knowledge.' Bhagavān, as for the reason why the Bhagavān said: 'The ultimate is subtle, profound, difficult to realize, extremely difficult to realize, having a lakṣaṇa of one taste everywhere' — how well the Bhagavān has spoken it! It is wondrous! Bhagavān, when even those beings who have entered this very teaching of the Bhagavān and have become bhikṣus find it so difficult to realize the ultimate having a lakṣaṇa of one taste everywhere, what need is there to speak of the tīrthikas outside of it?" The Bhagavān said: "Subhūti, it is so. It is just so. Having completely and perfectly awakened to the ultimate that is everywhere of one taste in lakṣaṇa — subtle, extremely subtle, profound, extremely profound, difficult to realize, extremely difficult to realize — I have explained, made clear, analyzed, designated, and thoroughly taught it. Why is that? Subhūti, it is because that which is the completely pure ālambana regarding the aggregates, I have thoroughly taught to be the ultimate; Subhūti, that which is the completely pure ālambana regarding the āyatanas, dependent origination, sustenance, the truths, the dhātus, the foundations of mindfulness, the correct abandonments, the bases of miraculous power, the faculties, the powers, the limbs of bodhi, and, Subhūti, the noble eightfold path, I have thoroughly taught to be the ultimate. Moreover, that completely pure ālambana regarding the aggregates is everywhere of one taste; it is not differentiated in lakṣaṇa. Just as with the aggregates, so that completely pure ālambana from the āyatanas up to the noble eightfold path is also everywhere of one taste; it is not differentiated in lakṣaṇa. Subhūti, by this reasoning you should understand that whatever has a lakṣaṇa that is everywhere of one taste is the ultimate. Furthermore, Subhūti, when a bhikṣu practitioner of yoga has thoroughly realized the tathatā, the ultimate, the selflessness of dharmas of one aggregate, he does not search separately for the tathatā, the ultimate, selflessness in the other aggregates, the dhātus, the āyatanas, dependent origination, sustenance, the truths, the foundations of mindfulness, the correct abandonments, the bases of miraculous power, the faculties, the powers, the limbs of bodhi, and the noble eightfold path; rather, by relying on that very non-dual jñāna which accords with tathatā, he purely apprehends and thoroughly realizes the ultimate having a lakṣaṇa of one taste everywhere. Subhūti, by this reasoning too you should understand that whatever has a lakṣaṇa that is everywhere of one taste is the ultimate. Furthermore, Subhūti, just as the aggregates, the āyatanas, dependent origination, sustenance, the truths, the dhātus, the foundations of mindfulness, the correct abandonments, the bases of miraculous power, the faculties, the powers, and these limbs of bodhi are mutually differentiated in their lakṣaṇa, and just as the noble eightfold path is mutually differentiated in its lakṣaṇa, if the tathatā, the ultimate, the selflessness of dharmas of those dharmas were also differentiated in lakṣaṇa, then the tathatā, the ultimate, the selflessness of dharmas would also have causes and arise from causes. If it arose from causes, it would be conditioned. If it were conditioned, it would not be the ultimate. If it were not the ultimate, another ultimate would have to be sought. Subhūti, because the ultimate, the selflessness of dharmas does not arise from causes, is unconditioned, is not not-the-ultimate, and another ultimate need not be sought for that ultimate; and whether Tathāgatas arise or do not arise, because that dhātu of the dharmatā of dharmas continuously abides forever and ever so that dharmas remain, Subhūti, by this reasoning too you should understand that whatever has a lakṣaṇa that is everywhere of one taste is the ultimate. Subhūti, it is, for example, like this: space is animitta with respect to the various, manifold, differentiated lakṣaṇa of matter, ### [22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.22) \[they are\] non-conceptual, unchanging, and have a single flavor everywhere. Subhūti, in the same way, the ultimate truth should be viewed as having a single flavor everywhere within phenomena of diverse characteristics." Then at that time the Bhagavān spoke these verses: / "That ultimate is not diverse; / The Buddhas teach it is of a single flavor everywhere. / Those who conceptualize diversity regarding it / Are conceited and confused." / This is the fourth chapter, on Subhūti. Then the bodhisattva Viśālamati asked the Bhagavān: "Bhagavān, it is said that 'a bodhisattva is skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness.' Bhagavān, to what extent is a bodhisattva skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness? When the Tathāgata designates a bodhisattva as skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness, to what extent does he designate it?" When this was said, the Bhagavān spoke thus to the bodhisattva Viśālamati: "Viśālamati, excellent, excellent that you have set out for the benefit of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, benefit, and happiness of beings including gods and humans, and have thought to ask the Tathāgata this very matter! Viśālamati, therefore listen and I shall explain to you being skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness. Viśālamati, here in this saṃsāra of six destinies, whatever sentient beings in whatever class of sentient beings, whether taking birth from an egg, taking birth from a womb, taking birth from warmth and moisture, ### [23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.23) or taking birth apparitionally, in that place of birth where a body is actualized and arises, initially, based on these two kinds of appropriation—appropriation of the physical sense faculties together with their bases, and appropriation of the latencies of conceptual proliferation that designate conventions onto nimittas, names, and concepts—the mind that possesses all seeds matures, functions, expands, increases, and broadens. In that regard, in the form realm both appropriations exist, while in the formless realm both appropriations do not exist. Viśālamati, that consciousness is called the 'appropriating consciousness' (ādānavijñāna) because it grasps and appropriates this body. It is also called the 'storehouse consciousness' (ālayavijñāna) because it inheres and adheres to this body in a shared state of functioning and feeling. It is also called 'mind' (citta) because it is accumulated and built up by forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas. Viśālamati, relying on and abiding in that appropriating consciousness, the six collections of consciousness arise, namely: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mental consciousness. There, based on the eye endowed with consciousness and forms, eye-consciousness arises; and occurring concurrently, simultaneously, and having the same object with that eye-consciousness, a conceptual mental consciousness also arises. Viśālamati, there, based on the ear, nose, and tongue endowed with consciousness, and the body endowed with consciousness together with tangibles, body-consciousness arises; and occurring concurrently, simultaneously, and having the same object with that body-consciousness, a conceptual mental consciousness also arises. If a single eye-consciousness arises concurrently, then only a single conceptual mental consciousness having the same object ### [24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.24) as that eye-consciousness arises concurrently. If two, three, four, or even all five collections of consciousness arise concurrently, then there too only a single conceptual mental consciousness having the same object as those five collections of consciousness arises concurrently. Viśālamati, it is just as, for example, when conditions are present for a single wave to arise in a great flowing river, then only a single wave arises. If conditions are present for two waves or very many waves to arise, very many waves arise, and that river is not interrupted by its own current, nor does it become exhausted. Moreover, in a thoroughly pure round mirror, if conditions are present for a single reflection to arise, then only a single reflection arises. If conditions are present for two reflections or very many reflections to arise, very many reflections arise, and that round mirror neither transforms into the entity of a reflection nor is seen to merge with it. Viśālamati, in the same way, relying on and abiding in that appropriating consciousness which is like a river and like a mirror, if conditions are present for a single eye-consciousness to arise at one time, then only a single eye-consciousness arises at that time. If conditions are present for up to all five collections of consciousness to arise at one time, then all five collections of consciousness also arise at that time. Viśālamati, although a bodhisattva who in this way relies on knowing the nature of dharmas and abides in knowing the nature of dharmas is skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness, when the Tathāgata designates a bodhisattva ### [25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.25) as skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness, he does not designate it entirely on that basis alone. Viśālamati, because a bodhisattva does not see appropriation within his own internal individual \[nature\], nor does he see the appropriating consciousness, and that \[absence of seeing\] is truly as it is; nor does he see the storehouse (ālaya), nor the storehouse consciousness; nor does he see what is accumulated, nor the mind; nor does he see the eye, nor forms, nor eye-consciousness; nor does he see the ear, nor sounds, nor ear-consciousness; nor does he see the nose, nor scents, nor nose-consciousness; nor does he see the tongue, nor tastes, nor tongue-consciousness; nor does he see the body, nor tangibles, nor body-consciousness; Viśālamati, because a bodhisattva does not see the intellect within his own internal individual \[nature\], nor does he see dharmas, nor does he see mental consciousness, and that \[absence of seeing\] is truly as it is—this is called a bodhisattva being skilled in the ultimate. The Tathāgata also designates a bodhisattva who is skilled in the ultimate as being skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness. Viśālamati, to that extent a bodhisattva is skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness, and when the Tathāgata designates a bodhisattva as skilled in the secrets of mind, intellect, and consciousness, he designates it to that extent." Then at that time the Bhagavān spoke these verses: / "The appropriating consciousness is deep and subtle; / All its seeds flow like a river's torrent. / Thinking that it would not be proper if they conceived of it as a self, / I have not taught it to childish beings." / The chapter on Viśālamati ### [26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.26) \[chapter\] five. Then the Bodhisattva Guṇākara asked the Bhagavān: "Bhagavān, when it is said, 'A bodhisattva is skilled in the characteristics of dharmas, a bodhisattva is skilled in the characteristics of dharmas,' Bhagavān, to what extent is a bodhisattva skilled in the characteristics of dharmas? And to what extent does the Tathāgata designate a bodhisattva as skilled in the characteristics of dharmas?" When he had spoken, the Bhagavān said to the Bodhisattva Guṇākara: "Guṇākara, it is good, good, that you have thought to ask the Tathāgata this matter for the sake of the welfare of many beings, for the happiness of many beings, out of compassion for the world, and for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of the world with its devas and humans! "Guṇākara, therefore listen, and I will explain to you skill in the characteristics of dharmas. "Guṇākara, these are the three characteristics of dharmas. What are the three? The imagined characteristic, the dependent characteristic, and the thoroughly established characteristic. "Guṇākara, what therein is the imagined characteristic of dharmas? It is the establishment of names and conventions regarding the intrinsic nature or particular attributes of dharmas to whatever extent they are designated for conventional discourse. "Guṇākara, what is the dependent characteristic of dharmas? It is the dependent origination of dharmas, which is to say: 'Because this exists, that comes to be; due to the arising of this, that arises,' namely: 'conditioned by ignorance are the saṃskāras,' and so on down to 'thus arises this entire great mass of suffering.' ### [27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.27) "Guṇākara, what is the thoroughly established characteristic of dharmas? It is the tathatā of dharmas, which bodhisattvas realize through the causes of exertion and proper manaskāra, and by thoroughly establishing familiarity with that realization, it is thoroughly established up to unsurpassed, perfect bodhi. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, just as a cataract defect appears in the eye of a person with cataracts, so should the imagined characteristic be regarded. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, just as the appearance of the signs of cataracts—such as tangled hair, flies, sesame seeds, or signs of blue, yellow, red, or white—appears to that person, so should the dependent characteristic be regarded. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, when the eye of that very person becomes completely purified and free from the cataract defect, that which is the natural domain of the eye, its unerroneous domain, should be regarded as the thoroughly established characteristic. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, when a very clear crystal comes into contact with blue color, it appears as an indranīla or mahānīla jewel, and by apprehending it mistakenly as an indranīla or mahānīla jewel, sentient beings are deluded. When it comes into contact with red color, it appears as a ruby jewel, and by apprehending it mistakenly as a ruby jewel, sentient beings are deluded. When it comes into contact with green color, it appears as an emerald jewel, and by apprehending it mistakenly as an emerald jewel, sentient ### [28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.28) beings are deluded. When it comes into contact with yellow color, it appears as gold, and by apprehending it mistakenly as gold, sentient beings are deluded. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, just as the very clear crystal comes into contact with colors, so should the latencies of conventional discourse of the imagined characteristic on the dependent characteristic be regarded. "It is like this: for example, just as apprehending the very clear crystal mistakenly as an indranīla jewel, a mahānīla, a ruby, an emerald, or gold, so should the apprehension of the dependent characteristic as the imagined characteristic be regarded. "Guṇākara, it is like this: for example, just as that very clear crystal itself, so should the dependent characteristic be regarded. "It is like this: for example, just as the very clear crystal is at all times and for all eternity unestablished as having the characteristic of an indranīla, a mahānīla, a ruby, an emerald, or gold, and lacks intrinsic nature in that respect, so too, because the dependent characteristic is at all times and for all eternity unestablished as having that imagined characteristic and lacks intrinsic nature in that respect, should the thoroughly established characteristic be regarded. "Guṇākara, therein, by relying on names associated with signs, the imagined characteristic is fully known. By relying on adherence to the dependent characteristic as being the imagined characteristic, the dependent characteristic is fully known. By relying on the absence of adherence to the dependent characteristic as being the imagined characteristic, the thoroughly established characteristic is fully known. "Guṇākara, therein, when a bodhisattva fully knows the imagined characteristic of dharmas in the dependent characteristic as it truly is, ### [29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.29) they fully know characterless dharmas as they truly are. Guṇākara, therein, when a bodhisattva fully knows the dependent characteristic as it truly is, they fully know dharmas with the characteristic of affliction as they truly are. Guṇākara, therein, when a bodhisattva fully knows the thoroughly established characteristic as it truly is, they fully know dharmas with the characteristic of purification as they truly are. "Guṇākara, therein, when a bodhisattva fully knows characterless dharmas in the dependent characteristic as they truly are, they abandon dharmas with the characteristic of affliction. When they abandon dharmas with the characteristic of affliction, they attain dharmas with the characteristic of purification. "Guṇākara, because a bodhisattva thus fully knows as they truly are the imagined characteristic, the dependent characteristic, and the thoroughly established characteristic of dharmas; fully knows as they truly are the characterless, the characteristic of affliction, and the characteristic of purification; and having fully known characterless dharmas as they truly are, abandons dharmas with the characteristic of affliction; and having abandoned dharmas with the characteristic of affliction, attains dharmas with the characteristic of purification—to that extent a bodhisattva is skilled in the characteristics of dharmas, and to that extent the Tathāgata designates a bodhisattva as skilled in the characteristics of dharmas." Then, on that occasion, the Bhagavān spoke these verses: "When characterless dharmas are fully known, Dharmas with the characteristic of affliction are abandoned; ### [30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.30) will arise. / If afflicted phenomena are thoroughly abandoned, / phenomena of utterly purified character will be attained. / Careless, ruined, lazy people, / who do not examine the faults of conditioned things, / and are thoroughly impaired regarding unstable, fluctuating, existent phenomena, / are to be pitied." Chapter Six, on the Ākarṣaṇa of Virtues (Guṇākara). Then the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata addressed the Bhagavān with these words: "Bhagavān, while I was residing here alone in seclusion, such a parikalpa arose in my mind: 'In many ways the Bhagavān has spoken of the svalakṣaṇa of the skandhas; he has spoken of the lakṣaṇa of arising, the lakṣaṇa of cessation, abandonment, and thorough knowledge. Just as he did for the skandhas, he has also spoken of the āyatanas, pratītyasamutpāda, and the nutriment. In many ways the Bhagavān has spoken of the lakṣaṇa of the truths; he has spoken of thorough knowledge, abandonment, actualization, and cultivation. In many ways the Bhagavān has spoken of the svalakṣaṇa of the dhātus; he has spoken of their diversity, their multiplicity, abandonment, and thorough knowledge. In many ways the Bhagavān has spoken of the svalakṣaṇa of the smṛtyupasthānas; he has spoken of their discordant factors, antidotes, cultivation, the arising of what has not arisen, the abiding of what has arisen, their non-forgetfulness, their recurrence, and their increase and expansion. Just as he did for the smṛtyupasthānas, he has also spoken of the samyakprahāṇas, the ṛddhipādas, the indriyas, the balas, and the bodhyaṅgas; ### [31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt.31) in many ways the Bhagavān has spoken of the svalakṣaṇa of the eightfold noble path; he has spoken of its discordant factors, antidotes, cultivation, the arising of what has not arisen, the abiding of what has arisen, its non-forgetfulness, its recurrence, and its increase and expansion. Yet the Bhagavān has also stated, "All things are without self-nature (niḥsvabhāva); all things are unborn, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning, and naturally in nirvāṇa." With what intention did the Bhagavān state, "All things are without self-nature; all things are unborn, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning, and naturally in nirvāṇa"?' Therefore, Bhagavān, I ask the Bhagavān about the precise meaning with which the Bhagavān stated, 'All things are without self-nature; all things are unborn, unceasing, peaceful from the beginning, and naturally in nirvāṇa.'" When he had spoken thus, the Bhagavān addressed the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata: "Paramārthasamudgata, excellent, excellent that such a virtuous and proper parikalpa arose in your mind! Paramārthasamudgata, it is further excellent that you have set out for the benefit of many people, the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, and for the welfare, benefit, and happiness of beings including devas and humans, and have thought to ask the Tathāgata about this very meaning. Therefore, Paramārthasamudgata, listen, and I will explain to you with what intention I said, 'All things are without self-nature; all things are unborn, unceasing, _First 29 of 107 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt)_ --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.samdhinirmocana*bo~en-mt) · Pramāṇa